Explanation: His hands were next to his body. He did not enter them beforehand. Tum'ah and Bi'ah come at once.

Implied question (Maharam): It says about [one who entered just his hands into] Bayis ha'Menuga (a house with Tzara'as) that hands are Teme'im [only] mid'Rabanan (Chulin 33b), even though a Metzora is Metamei b'Ohel [like a Mes, and presumably, the same applies to Bayis ha'Menuga]!

Answer (Maharam): Even so, it is not so much as if it were full of Tum'ah.

Support: Likewise, one who enters Bayis ha'Menuga, he is Tamei, even though he did not touch it, and even so it is taught in Mishnayos that if there is a wall 10 Tefachim tall between the Tahor person and the Metzora, he is not Metamei him;

Tum'as Mes is different. Even [if a full wall up to the ceiling separates them, even] an opening [in it of a square] Tefach brings Tum'ah [to the other side].

Explanation: This is because his nose enters first.

Explanation: He was Kofeh his head outside the house. ["Kofeh" means to bend], like "ha'Lachof k'Agmon Rosho." (Birkas Rosh explains that these words "Kemo ha'Lachof..." are a marginal note added later by another author.)

Implied question: Why can't we say that he entered the house backwards?

Answer: This is not called entering, like it says in Shevuos (17b) and Chulin (10b).

Observation: Against all of these answers, we could have asked that it is impossible that his minority does not enter first, and is Metamei him, before his majority enters.

Explanation: We must say that he helped remove the top, for we discuss one who was warned for lashes.

Inference: [Our Sugya implies that] a Kohen may not enter a cemetery, even for his relatives there, to become Tamei through them, even if he is already profaned (Tamei).

Even according to Rabah [who says that he is not lashed twice for Tum'ah after Tum'ah], if he separated, he may not become Tamei;

[He may not enter the cemetery,] for after he separates from his Mes, he will walk over other Mesim and tower over them.

Support: We learned like this in Evel Rabsi (Perek 5). This is from the Ri.

Note: Maharav Ransborg says that the last words of this Tosfos belong at the end of DH Mar, above.

Explanation: Even for others, he is not commanded [about Tum'as Nega'im], only about Tum'as Mes, for it says "Al Kol Nafshos Mes Lo Yavo."

Comment - Citation (Toras Kohanim): In their death he may not become Tamei, but he may sit at the eulogy and in the consolation line.

Pesak: [We learn from here that] a Kohen is not commanded about [avoiding] a Goses, for we hold like R. Yochanan against Reish Lakish.

Alternate opinion: Bahag's text says "Abaye" in place of R. Yochanan, and "Rava" in place of Reish Lakish. According to this, the Halachah follows Rava against Abaye;

According to Rava, Rebbi and Rabanan argue. We hold that the Halachah follows Rebbi against his colleague, but not against his colleagues. It turns out that a Kohen is commanded about a Goses.

Explanation: If the Mes could call, and people would answer, this is not a Mes Mitzvah.

[We ask that] the Mes' son is here. He can hire others to engage in the Mes!

[We answer that] since he is traveling, it is as if there is no one to bury the Mes, for people are not found there.

Pesak (Ri): A Kohen who comes to engage in a Mes Mitzvah, if there is a Yisrael who can engage, even if [the Yisrael] is not a relative, Kohanim relatives may not engage. (We do not discuss one of the seven relatives for whom Kohanim must become Tamei.)

Proof: Below (47a), it says about a Mes Mitzvah, if a Kohen Gadol and Nazir [are the only ones there], the Nazir becomes Tamei, and not the Kohen Gadol;

All the more so, if a Kohen and Yisrael [are the only ones there], the Yisrael becomes Tamei, and not the Kohen.

Question: In Yevamos (89b), regarding "a minor wife - her husband inherits her, and become Tamei for her [if she dies]", the Gemara asks "if Chachamim do not have the power to uproot a matter from the Torah, why is he Mitamei?"

The Gemara answers that since the relatives do not inherit her, we apply to her "she calls and they do not answer."

Question: What is the case? If there is no one else to engage in her, why do we say that he buries her because she was his wife? Even someone else [he would bury]. This is an absolute Mes Mitzvah!

Answer: Rather, there are others who could engage in her, and [since they do not want to], this is considered like a Mes Mitzvah

Inference: If there is a Mes in front of a Kohen, and there is a Yisrael, but he is not concerned to deal with it, it is considered a Mes Mitzvah.

Answer (Ri): Surely, letter of the law [a minor wife] is not a Mes Mitzvah. However, since her relatives neglect her, Rabanan made her like a Mes Mitzvah;

Even though Chachamim do not have the power to uproot a Torah law to permit an action, when there are aspects and reasons [to permit], surely all agree that they have the power to uproot.

Proof: In the entire Sugya there, we do not bring that a woman is believed to say "my husband died" [and we permit her to remarry without witnesses]. They uprooted a Torah law to permit an action!

Inference: Surely when there are aspects and reasons [to permit], surely all agree that they have the power to uproot. Regarding a woman [who says that her husband died], there is a reason [to permit her]. She checks thoroughly before remarrying, due to the stringencies that apply at the end. (If her husband returns after she remarried, she suffers 13 fines, e.g. she is permanently forbidden to her old and new husbands and receives no Kesuvah from them, her children from them are Mamzerim...)

Explanation: This is written regarding a Kohen Hedyot. "He is not Mitamei for her" excludes Ever Min ha'Chai of his sister, and Ever Min ha'Mes. He may not become Tamei for them.

Citation of Gemara: This is because he does not become Tamei for Ever Min ha'Chai of his father.

Explanation: Even of his father, who is closer, he may not become Tamei for a limb of his father.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer: Perhaps we learn from "l'Aviv".

Explanation: [R. Yehudah permits to be Mitamei for Ever Min ha'Mes of his father] through returning, if he was Mitamei for the rest of the body. However, l'Chatchilah, surely R. Yehudah agrees that he may not be Mitamei, like the Beraisa above.

Citation (the Seifa of the Beraisa above, in Toras Kohanim - Rebbi): He is not Mitamei for a bone k'Se'orah (the size of a barley seed) from his father, but he returns for a bone k'Se'orah.

Question: We established this like R. Yehudah. Since R. Yehudah speaks in the Seifa, we infer that the Reisha is not R. Yehudah!

Answer: [This is difficult,] unless we will say that the entire Beraisa is R. Yehudah.

Explanation: It is written "Emor El ha'Kohanim v'Amarta" - the verse adds another Tum'ah for which [a Kohen] may be Mitamei;

It is reasonable to establish "Emor v'Amarta" regarding his sister, which [the verse] was discussing, to exclude limbs [from "Lah Yitama"], and [Emor... v'Amarta] adds that he may become Tamei for [bones that comprise] the majority of her stature or the majority of the number [of her bones];

[We ask that] perhaps he may not become Tamei for the spine, skull, majority of the number [of bones] or majority of the stature of other relatives in the Torah for which it is written that he is Mitamei for them!

[We answer that] just like his sister, her body depends on him, i.e. she is his relative and it is incumbent on him to bury her [the same applies to other relatives].

Observation: We should have asked that perhaps he may become Tamei for others (relatives) even for limbs, had we not learned from his sister, about whom it says "Lah". (In any case, the answer we gave answers also this; we learn from his sister.)

Explanation: We answer [the question against Rav Chisda from this Beraisa], and say that also this [Beraisa] of R. Eliezer ben Yakov is like R. Yehudah, and Rav Chisda holds like the following Tana.